9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, Revenue has challenged common judgment passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad ["Tribunal" for short] dated 29th June 2012. Following questions have been presented for our consideration : "(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,46,66,667/= made on account of sale of Ampad Land ? (B) Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal is not perverse in as much as it failed to take cognizance of dates of "cash receipts" mentioned in seized documents ?" 2.2 Respondent assessee along with other family members owned a land at Ampad. The assessee was subjected to search proceedings. During the course of search and seizure op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amount 19.06.06 2000000.00 30.06.06 6500000.00 12.08.06 1500000.00 10.08.06 2500000.00 14.08.06 2500000.00 30.09.06 4500000.00 06.10.06 5000000.00 10.10.06 4000000.00 11.10.06 1000000.00 04.01.07 8950000.00 06.01.07 1550000.00 21.01.07 2000000.00 01.02.07 2000000.00 28.07.07 4500000.00 04.08.07 1917000.00 06.01.09 2000000.00 TOTAL 52417000.00 2.4 Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, confronted the assessee with such receipts. The assessee stated that such amount was received for sale of Ampad land from Kanubhai Patel. Such deal, however, was cancelled. The entire amount was therefore returned to the purchaser. He, however, did not disclose the identity of the proposed purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT [A], making following observations:- '17. We have examined the facts of the case and the orders of the authorities below in the light of the compilation placed on record. A document was seized which has indicated a cash receipt of ₹ 524.17 lacs which was stated to be in receipt of transfer of AMPAD land. The transactions which were found recorded in the said seized document have mentioned the name of one Mr. Kanubhai Patel. The Assessing Officer has added the amount which was alleged to be assessed for A.Y 2007-08 and part of it, respectively for A.Y 2008-09. But, one of the fact which has a direct adverse impact on the stand taken by the Assessing Officer was that in a statement r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rat had approached the appellant in a property fair and had expressed his willingness to purchase the aforesaid Ampad Land and accordingly had paid an amount of ₹ 524.17 lacs in cash on various dates. f. Mr. Kanubhai Patel was not closely known to the appellant. As Mr. Kanubhai Patel failed to convert the land from agricultural land into non-agricultural land the transaction was cancelled and the amount received from him was returned back. g. It may be mentioned that seized material Page 1 of Annexure A-1 itself shows that the amount had been paid back along with interest of ₹ 18.00 lacs (refer page 77). h. The fact that the amount was paid back is duly reflected in the seized material found during the course of search by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res, both these documents had handwriting entries indicating total receipt of ₹ 5.24 Crores from Kanubhai Patel and repayment of ₹ 5.04 Crores on different dates; leaving residual amount of ₹ 20 lakhs. It was this amount of ₹ 20 lakhs which the later document carried in the form of repayment on 6/1/2009. The Assessing Officer completely discarded the assessee's version of collection of such amount towards sale of Ampad land to Kanubhai Patel, which transaction ultimately did not materialize and therefore, the requirement for refunding the amount. It is true that neither the CIT [A] nor the Tribunal has commented on this approach of the Assessing Officer. They, however, treated taxing of such amount as double taxa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
